tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 6, 2014 4:00pm-6:01pm EDT
i was invited and met the president for the first time at that dinner at this agreement or justices and we kind of knew that the pending nomination had something to do with the dinner and i do remember meeting the president for the first time he came over to our table and talked about the financial crisis in new york and the federal government asked to pour in some money. i don't remember the details but i do remember being very impressed about the fact that the president was a good lawyer and a thoroughly understood the issues and explained what was going on in a way that the
and eventually he was appointed to the court of appeals to for three years after i had been appointed. and so we find ourselves being -- often competitors to megatrends. we have conversation about it. kind of hard to do your regular work without knowing what is going on here. and so we agree to it. each of us agreed to tell the other one if we heard anything about the nomination. our opportunity to get the job. so about three or four days after we had that conversation, the friday after text giving, president ford called me up. my secretary was not there.
explain the was going to nominate me. was very pleased and told himself. he talked for a minute and then he said we're going to announce this about 5:00 this afternoon here in washington. he said i asked you not to tell anybody about it. i would like to, mr. president, but i have this problem. [laughter] i would let him know. and the president responded by saying, sure if you tell him i asked you not to tell the body he will understand and forgive you. are, that's very nice of you. i'm happy about the solution. [laughter] come back around 5:00 that afternoon.
and actually i visit with my mother. she was then about my age now. anyway. >> did you tell your mother? >> yes, i did. [laughter] i knew she wouldn't tell anybody. [laughter] anyway, i did. [laughter] anyone, the famous story back to the office about 4:00 in the afternoon. the phone rang again and i answer that. the day after thanksgiving. my secretary was in there. in the person on the other seven cars from the white house, and the president as as we did so you that you can tell judge that we are going to announce it publicly. and i thought, up is pretty awful.
and the inferno, he walked in the office and congratulate me. he had already heard it. [laughter] an interesting though. >> that is a great story. it really, again, reflects a while in prison for. >> i have often thought about that. he had an awful lot on his mind and took the time to tell somebody, my promise to fill. >> it was. he was an extraordinary man with great judgment. so let me ask you a few questions about six amendments to me most recent book. so this is a book about six amendments that you think we should have to the constitution. >> right. >> and headed to come to write it? >> well, it is interesting. i think i explained in the first chapter. it was the massacre, after the
shootings up in connecticut, there was a new york times story that stated that because of a decision, the united states supreme court a few years ago, the databases that the fbi uses to check out the prospect of prep -- prospective purchases of firearms are not entirely complete because some states are not, do not provide all of the detail that the fda requires. and the reason they don't do it is because of a supreme court decision. and i had decided they had on wisely adopted a rule which i call the in tight rule that prohibits the federal government from compelling state officials
to obey any federal command even know world war one drive, or or to draft, largely conducted by state officials on their own to amount paid by the federal government. and then in any event the court adopted this anti, gerald. which at the time i thought was unwise. in this new york times story, well, they're really cook -- should change that. so the parts of the cost is the story. a thinker explains that. and then after that i thought, well, other things should be changed, too, such as that gerrymandering, a terrible practice that no one can defend on the merits and the court could easily correct by applying the same rules they apply their racial gerrymandering cases to
political gerrymandering. get rid of it, substantially in any event. so i put in a chapter about that to my chapter about campaign financing. the l.a. chapter that i think is really the most interesting in the book is about sovereign immunity, the notion that a state official does not have to obey federal law that i made those four chapters. having written those, i also should include chapters. >> of the death penalty to you think there should not be a death penalty. >> that's right. and it is a very simple reason. i'm not as persuasive as and he should be, but we now know that our criminal justice system is
by no means infallible, proof beyond reasonable doubt. very accurate, but it does not avoid the real very serious risk of executing someone who is found guilty and fairly. and that is the reason michigan does not have the death penalty. one of the legislatures have participated in execution of a man who later turned out to be innocent. >> and so of the six if you could pick one, what is the most important amendments to put in effect? >> i think it gerrymandering is the most important, although campaign finance is a close second. >> why gerrymandering? >> well, i think two reasons. is very rarely defended on the merits. if you figure that government officials have a duty to govern impartially, not try to advance
their own personal interest for their own political interest and when they're acting and the government they clearly have a duty to act in a non-partisan way rely on impartial things. they are not doing it. everybody knows. you can tell which districts in a crazy shapes. and if you apply the same rule you apply racial gerrymandering, you would put an end to it. it really distorts the political process. i think it makes primary election is more important than general elections. and as i say, on the merits clearly needs to be changed. >> one of the poison you make in the book is that because districts are partisan it forces people to the extremes.
republicans to be conservative, democrat to be more liberal. that is a reason why we are at such loggerheads it politically. >> i think that is right. i have to say, that influenced the couple of years i spent in congress from the house judiciary committee. most of the work in congress at that time the parties, there would tend to take partisan positions. then make more speeches and so forth. but the congress and was a legislative body on which there were all one team for the most part. >> it is an amazing translation. and the book is really remarkably powerful on each of the six amendments. i would urge all of you to read them. we have time for a couple of
questions. so if you can stay in need. >> hi. my name is callebs great. of very recent interview justice ginsburg said assesses the united was the worst decision by the court. antares' if you feel strongly enough about the decision you disagree with the say the same co what you think would be the worst decision. >> well, i think the worst decision that has been handed down while i was on the court was bush the door. i think that was wrong. i think it has become more and more obvious than specifically the order prohibiting any breakout, the state thought that was appropriate, the state rules. at think that citizens united
certainly was bad enough. i think push the door was even worse. >> why was it so bad? >> well, it gave the public the incorrect impression that the courts our political institutions rather than doing their best shot to try to figure out what the lawyers. >> and even early in when you're on the seventh circuit you have this is that as evidence of a key position on the bush forces court. >> that's true. the case arose out of the senatorial election in indiana between two candid it's, and every count had been ordered. three judge court -- dissented from my two colleagues -- actually increased the risk of erroneous ballot i'm wondering
if you could talk a little bit about if you think it is an effective means for change in the women's rights discoursed? >> you have to repeat it for me. >> the question is, you know, in your book you don't talk about the equal rights amendment. >> that's right. >> so would you -- shed the equal rights amendment have been adopted? what difference would it have made? >> well, i remember that. well, that was an issue when i went through the confirmation process. and i made the tactical error of
saying it did not think the boy rights amendment was necessary because i thought it the equal freak protection clause was properly construed that the gender discrimination could be appropriately curtailed. and the national organization for women opposed my nomination because i took that position. that wasn't the only reason. it was a good reason, by the way. [laughter] severally don't think it would have made much difference if you have the equal rights amendment adopted. >> do you believe case law would still be the same? >> i think so. i think breath ginsburg was not -- she did not actually make
your argument, but in the case involving a decedent's estate, it was irrational to disqualify women from the job of an executor. but that was a groundbreaking case. i don't think they get enough credit for that. they did not rely on any particular tear of scrutiny. he just basically said it was a lot of nonsense. >> sure, this is terrific. >> and looking at your confirmation proceedings, should the other concern was raised when people are concerned about your health. >> that's right. >> and would you -- [laughter] so i think you have proven that wrong. >> well, i had just earlier had heart bypass operation. it was kind of a new procedure at that time.
it's a very common practice now. >> i have to send, and the weight of history, the fact you were nominated coming it is an extraordinary moment in the history of the country in terms of the tradition of the constitution. and for more than 30 years on the bench you were an extraordinary champion of the rule of law and justice and integrity. and we're all really privileged, our students are starting their legal career and what to be able to listen to you. so on behalf of the entire georgetown law community i, first of all, would like to present -- we have ties, but we don't have buckeyes. so i can't give you an georgetown law bow tie, but i can give you:00 that commemorate this occasion, and it says to a justice stevens on the occasion of the first inaugural conversation to the first-year
class. so it is a pleasure to be able to present it to you. please, big round of applause and thanks. [applause] [applause] >> thank you. [applause] >> c-span campaign 2014 coverage continues with a debate from today in north carolina's second congressional district pitting republican incumbent rene omers running for a third term against her democratic challenger and former american idle rough clay can. you can see that debate tonight starting at 8:00 eastern on c-span. and oklahoma governor mary fallon and her democratic challenger john gorman recently faced off in their one and only debate. the political reports of frank this race as solid republican. here's a brief look at some of
last week's debate. >> in light of recent natural disasters and school shootings had each of you plan on updating your emergency plans for oklahoma's public school system? fallin: that is a great question. what to make sure that all facilities in the state of oklahoma are safe. just recently this week and received the nra endorsement, which i am very proud of. i am a big supporter of the second amendment, the state of oklahoma, and we want to make sure that we can create a safe facilities at our schools. that is why i propose allowing local school districts to look locally and be able to decide if they need to enhance their school safety facility in the school. it might make sense to figure how much they can afford and what they need to do. something is very, very important. i suddenly work with homeland
security on making sure that we keep the public aware of the institutional threat. we had a tragic episode that happened in the state of oklahoma this week that scheck has downtown very foundation. we want to make sure that oklahoma is aware that wherever there is that we address those concerns quickly and keep our public informed. to get back to, we are doing everything we can to make sure we have anywhere to see plan in place and we certainly have a show that. i was the to the governor when we had our federal buildings bombed many years ago. i was there during a difficult time in oklahoma history, and we will do everything we can to make sure we are safe as citizens to protect a second in a rights. >> thank you very much. you have 90 seconds. >> thank you very much. sometimes talk is cheap on this, and we need real, action.
four years ago minutes ago or in the state the governor of education were the programs share to fund the programs was an emergency hot line to call. we saw when the council met just a couple of weeks ago was one of the first suggestions. now, the board my opponent appointed has backed up all of these policies we have seen go through school policies that have hurt our schools. we must keep real action and real leaders. i champion that. we had a meeting in my hometown. i invited school superintendent and school professionals and teachers and parents from all over the state to discuss what we could do better. we almost saw a a tragedy similar to what we saw in sandy hook, but that was the verdict because stephens acted the right way.
the reporter this situation. we must encourage the students to look for these situations and work with their school administrators. i certainly want to see more resource officers in the schools partnerships between the emmy's abilities and school districts to have that mental position, that law enforcement officer in the schools can help provide a safety and security. we must work to make sure our teachers have the right resources. we cannot continue these cats. >> all of that available on our website. we also want to mention live coverage of several senate debates coming up tomorrow. west virginia secretary of state and congresswoman shirley more capital face off in a race for the open seat of retiring five term senator jay rockefeller. that is live tomorrow night at 7:00 eastern on c-span. also at 7:00 live right here on c-span2 virginia senate debate between incumbent democrat mark warner and his republican challenger former rnc chair for a gillespie. 9:00 eastern back of ron c-span
will take you north carolina for another senate debate between democratic incumbent kay hagen and republican representative tom tell us tuesday night on the c-span network. this nationwide competition for middle and high school students will a war or better 50 prizes totaling $100,000. create a 5-79 documentary. videos need to include c-span programming, show varying points of view, and must be submitted by january 20th 2015. grab the camera and get started today. ♪ >> a federal appeals court heard oral argument last week in a case challenging a law that bans federal contractors from contributing to political campaigns. the case wagner v. fec in cost
three independent contractors from various federal agencies. they argue that the ban on federal contractor contributions violates the first amendment free-speech and fifth amendment equal protection rights. the argument from that case was just over an hour. >> before we begin i just wanted to indicate for the purpose of the audience that judge henderson is actually here in spirit. very sick today, but she is listening in as we are going forward with the argument. >> may please the court, the fundamental problem with section 441, whether viewed through the prism of the first amendment or the "protection costs, is it a complete lack between the asserted purpose of the statute and the means by which it is carried out. the purpose of the statute is to avoid the appearance of impropriety and the possibility of corruption and this is simply
not fair >> are you abandoning that? >> no, your honor. either or both. >> the first man and ounces would be a little sweetening, wouldn't it? the supreme court is not used the equal protection analysis. it had a chance to do so in davison didn't. why would we -- >> your honor, they did use it in austin. of course, austin was overruled on the merits, but in austin the corps' first considered whether the statute at issue was under inclusive and over inclusive and rejected that and then went on to analyze the court protection claim that unincorporated associations were treated better than corporations. so we did reach the merits on the equal protection claim. treat them separately. so we have some history. as far as one is more sweeping
another, it depends on how you look at it. in one sense, if we prevail on our first amendment argument that corporations are allowed to make contributions of which, of course, they're not, they would also be forbidden to be permitted to make contributions as contractors. on the other hand, if we prevail on equal protection the question of whether 441c could be amended to preclude the individuals or corporations from making contributions could be left for another date. i guess it depends on how you view the question and whether one is more sweeping than the other. >> i have a sort of general perspective question for you about the fifth. as i read these briefs, it occurred to me that this case is quite different from other contribution cases. you know, there is more at risk here that the congress is trying to accomplish like a new playing
field or limiting the amount of money in politics or even protecting incumbents. this law is -- corruption just in the procurement process and its focus only applies to people participating in a process and only while they're participating so it seems that the fish is actually quite snug, and it does not raise all of these concerns. i am wondering whether you think that is a fair description of. >> i would first agree with your honor that this statute is different from all the rest because it is an absolute ban. every other statute -- >> that was my question. i am curious to hear your reaction about the context of try to put the case in. >> it is. but i think it is different in
another way. there is, if you go back to a legislative history of this, the reason this was put in in 1940, it was put in and a time when we and house feel that the government could forbid anyone from becoming -- if you wanted to become a policeman you were essentially a second-class citizen. the theory at the time was that if you were a government employee or a government contractor, congress could forbid you from making contributions as a condition of your becoming a government contractor. that is no longer the law. it is clear that accepting money from the federal government as an employe you, as a contractor or a contract the. >> i agree with that. >> and freer talking about some sort of suspect motive, that is the suspect motive, but i don't think we have to show suspect motive. i think we just have to show that it is either under inclusive court over inclusive. >> to pick up on the judge's question, while the homeless
feel is not the current year, it is the case that the government has authority to regulate its own work force more fully than it can regulate private citizens their is a tradition of ethics rules on government employees and contractors that are much more stringent. why isn't this case better viewed as really a government ethics case should particular
attention to. >> i agree that government employees and federal contractors can inappropriate cases be subject to more strict regulation. but as cases like in t e you show, there are plenty minutes on what federal employees can be made to do are not permitted to do. in the question here is, is that if it close enough, and i suggest to you that it is not. >> looking at ten or maybe 11 government employees does not make a contribution of any kind to any federal employee, to any federal candidate "campaign committee. the code of conduct bars each one of us from making contributions. >> and had not consider that question, your honor. >> now is your chance. >> first and would say it does not make you a fallen.
>> i did not take it that you were lying. >> the court has pointed that among several occasions, your honor. justice kennedy, most recently citizens united made an important point of that. >> that is what your lion. >> i did not say that. i guess i would have to ask you a question. i would say that the appearance of giving money to federal candidates or persons before mumia pier is -- there is no corruption issue. a chance anybody we give money to that is going to help with the corruption. we all have lifetime appointments. the real purpose behind the ban on our own is the one judge catherine just mentioned, the importance of the traditional -- the judiciary and likewise the civil service to appear non-partisan and to not be appearing to be contributing to campaigns. isn't that in addition to all
things the judge said which makes this case differed from the usual case, this was also different from the usual questions about whether bands on campaign contributions are first amendment problems in that they apply to as judge cavanaugh said , government employees. we have not only the concern about quid pro quo corruption in the appearance thereof, but also the concern about the neutrality of the civil service. >> i agree, your honor, the natural the of the civil service and the judiciary are very important. congress has made a decision with respect to the neutrality of the federal service that banning contributions is not an essential element. >> it is done other things which may be more strict with respect to federal employees. as you know. their is a different kind of balancing that has given them the protection of the mayor systems protection board which is not available to the
independent contractor. so congress is -- if you're saying that congress has made this determination and we should defer to it in the a pretty much talk yourself out of court. >> well, if congress actually sat down with the federal and election campaign act in mind, with the very many changes in the federal contacting process that taken place in 1940 and and actually sat down and said, this is the balance we are striking. as it did in 1939 and again in 1993 when changes were made about what might have a different situation. >> with this law was precipitated by scandal in the 40's. congress banned all contributions by contractors. and since then the only major change is that government contracting is becoming a far larger percentage of government work. if anything it is a much greater concern today and it was many years ago.
>> your honor, i would point out to things. it was a major change in 1976 when congress amended section 441c to expressly permit corporate contractors to establish pacs which must be established under their own name . they were funded by other corporations or contractors, and those pacs can make the identical top -- contributions that my clients cannot take. in addition corporate officers to make contributions, corporate shareholders. >> there could be a problem. i know you are arguing for strict scrutiny, but there isn't any precedent that contribution limits should be reviewed under strict scute -- direct scrutiny. >> yes, your honor. i would agree there is no supreme court precedent. but the most recent case, mceachern case, while not directly on point, demonstrates
clearly that the closely drawn strength -- standard has great teeth as the court said in that case. was requiring -- it objected because there was a substantial mismatch. >> in that case, and the catching your regulating speech of the general citizenry. and as you know, it has been discussed. this is a particular type of regulation of individuals who are in close working relationships with the government, working for the government under contracts, and it applies only during the time that they try to require that contract are serving under a contract. so what i'm trying to figure out is how do cases like board of county commissioners building on the pickering standards for regulating employee use speech factor in. do they influence the closely drawn scrutiny in a way that would give greater deference to the government, or should we be applying those standards?
how did those two lines of authority it interact in this context. >> i agree with your honor that there are many strands of supreme court jurisprudence that are an issue with this case. this case requires the court to deal with the intersection. >> i think that in the campaign finance area because its first amendment and as we say also equal protection, that the court has been very solicitous of the right to make any contributions of all. and so as the court said in the bombing case, while we don't apply strict scrutiny, we will look at the nature of the activity being regulated here. we will see how broadly, looking at other alternatives. here -- >> when and they've been solicited contributions by individuals other working for the government or under contract with the government any more solicitous beyond the balance? >> i agree with your honor
that the court is not face that question. as far as employees are concerned, they're permitted to make contributions. >> with contractors. >> i know of no case in which the first amendment -- the nasa case which we cited in our brief, the corset with respect to back investigations, as contractors and employees, we should treat this similarly which is where asking for your. streets in the same. yes, there are differences. the mayor protection board protect employees, but there are provisions of the government contracting laws that give contractors to think they have been treated unfairly the right to go to court, to make protests. there nice and this same because they aren't. >> in citizens united, which is obviously a pro free-speech decision, and specifically karzai from your perspective letter carriers as a precedent that it is approving of and letter carriers, of course, was a case that said federal service is different.
"is federal servants should depend on meritorious performance rather than political service. that seems to be exactly what the government is relying on here. approval in citizens united. >> of course, there was no ban on employees making contributions in a letter carriers. the general proposition, -- >> the ban on various first amendment speech and association. >> yes, your honor. >> a different kind of association. the basic principle is still cited there with approval and citizens united. >> i do not disagree that there is an authority for the congress to regulate the activities of contractors and employees differently than what they would regulate the activities of ordinary citizens. >> t think congress to ban federal employees from all contributions? >> i do not believe so, your honor. >> why not? >> i don't think the justification is there for.
we're talking about low-level federal employees, someone who works as a custodian or secretary to make contributions, it seems to me that that would be excessive and the first amendment. it would be overly broad and, of course, we would also look to see whether it is under intensive as well. examinations that the supreme court has insisted upon making when we are regulating speech. >> some of the briefs inmate were under inclusive. in this question you started to talk about with respect to corporate officers. part of the argument is that it makes no sense to draw the line in the way the statute does because it includes contractors, but it does not include the officers of corporate contractors. >> and also the political committees which are required to bear the same name and so forth. >> one question i had about that is the mother is something a little bit odd about the doctrine that says
that this is a violation of the first amendment or the first amendment used through the "protection clause because it does not restrict enough speech. and in particular i looked at the green party decision which i know the parties of a familiar with from the second circuit which involve a contribution band that did a stand to court officers. the analysis in that case, the court sustains it but barely. they say it seems like it is almost over brought in order to sleep with and as corporate officers. we will hold our nose and sustain it. it seems strange to say that that was barely constitutional but it turns out it was actually constitutionally compelled. the green party case as i read it stands at par for the proposition that it was sustainable because they closed loopholes. the green party said it would make no sense to ban corporations from making the contributions but to allow the owner of the corporation which is the same name as the company -- >> i did not read the decision that way. it might well make sense.
we are very troubled by the extension took cover corporate officers as well because it restricts more speech. but because the legislature gives substantial leeway in this area where going to sustain it. the flip side of that is that the legislature should have freedom to decide that it does not want to restrict or speech by extending the law to corporate officers. >> of course, there is another distinction in that case. the law at issue there was in response to a series of scandals. the legislature sat down and consciously drooped -- drew careful lines, precisely the kind of considered legislative agenda we don't find here. >> the question of under inclusiveness. the classic statement of the closely drawn rule which comes from berkeley and is repeated in the caption said this, it may be sustained if the state demonstrates acis -- and employing interest that deploys means closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgement of associational
freedoms. to the extent that the statute is leakey and allows more first amendment freedoms does not appear to be inconsistent with the task that the court has employed for closely drawn. and we specifically said that under inclusiveness counts only if it does not serve the purpose of all. >> the cloture you have for both buckley in metuchen there was under inclusion of persons are semi situated. but the cases that talk about what you are essentially raising is an equal protection argument, as far as i can tell ones in which there is concern about what the court repeatedly says is invidious discrimination, were you have some reason to be suspicious, that congress is favoring incumbents over not incumbents, you don't
actually think what is really going on here is that congress is trying to benefit corporations over individual contractors? there is absolutely no evidence of that kind of insidious discrimination. it may be a mistake, but it is not invidious discrimination. >> i would agree with your honor that in that sense there is not invidious discrimination. the first amendment and equal protection clause requires more that if it is discriminatory in fact or if it is vastly under and over and closes the that is enough. in the area we are dealing with first amendment fundamental right. >> why under inclusiveness? and get your point about over inclusiveness, but the purpose as it was pointing out in the green party case is to avoid more restrictions. why doesn't the statute yet include those stiff restrictions?
>> the under inclusiveness, your honor, is there is a check to be sure that the legislature has carefully considered the question and is not doing things in it for me. to be sure that the asserted purpose is actually being carried out. >> when case that was not mentioned a lot in the briefing is broderick. and in broderick, which was a state law variant, the decision came down contemporaneously with letter carriers, only a protection claim in that case said that the state hatch act provisions or under inclusive because they only encompass classified employees and did not encompass unclassified employees as well. in the supreme court justice best with that in the fun out and said there's an equal protection claim but the legislature has to have substantial leeway in dealing with it and it would seem strange to restrict even more speech. the legislature should be given free and not to give the extra mile. there is some -- now you
have a supreme court decision that addresses in a court protection under inclusiveness claman analogous context. i'm just wondering what might be that distinction between the mud of analysis applied there and what you'd wanted to hear. >> adelle make the argument that the underclass to this aspect of this is more, is as significant as the over inclusive, but the fact that the statute is overly broad. recognize that in broderick there was no ban on the activity we're dealing with here which is the contributions. furthermore, of course, at the time the statute had been recently -- >> a lot of things. >> yes, but most of them had to do with the activities being conducted by soles servants while there were on the job. this activity we're trying to do here is off the job. the irony is is that the fec says, well, your first amendment rights are not completely restricted. what you can do is hold a
fund-raiser at your house, invite anybody want to have them raise hundreds of thousands of dollars. the people can be seeking to get ambassadorships, and chickens and a thousand dollars of euro money on invitations, food, and it does not even have to be reported. that seems to me to get lied to the notion that the statute is really all about appearances. >> he think there is secretly something going on here? i do appreciate the role of strict scrutiny and ferreting out the true motives of congress. you don't think the true motives, however imperfectly attempted to resolve, is preventing corruption an appearance? >> i agree that is what they were trying to do, but the message was a blunderbuss. >> does not the same thing. >> has closely drawn to my ear on a. >> to keep saying there are punitive motives as if you don't believe that that was really what the motive was.
you don't actually key -- think there is a motive here >> i agree there were trying to stamp out corruption. the question is whether the first amendment allows them to do this. i say to you that the closely drawn standard does not committed as the supreme court has interpreted. >> let me ask you an unrelated. it is about the anc. an individual contractor could create in elsie. >> yes. >> and spend as much money as he or she wants. >> the answer is, if the contractor was a person like wendy wagner essentially a part-time consultant or expert witness, the persons like mr. miller and mr. mr. brown almost certainly could not have done this through the yellow sea. or if they had, if the
agency would have allowed them, they would have had a substantial sacrifice. that is, as individuals they have the agencies paying the employer share of their federal tax. in addition they get a vacation benefits and sick leave which obviously a corporation could not take. >> he sees me. let me fans is equal protection question. so your point is an equal protection i take it, it's not a realistic option. >> that is correct. >> switched to the first amendment side. doesn't that hurt your first amendment case? it's not a realistic option for employees. that does not undermine the legitimacy of the government you don't have all lot of government contractors creating al elsie's and making political contributions be don't have
that. >> i agree, your honor. but the inability of individuals who are essentially working as a ploy used, it does not affect my first amendment argument. >> can i clarify? >> i'm curious. you saying that term committee in this law could extend to the in our rain or camino, these other groups? is that really in play in this case? >> well, we believe that it is. it demonstrates the over breath of this low. the case from the fourth circuit. they upheld a ban. but there was an out. they could make contributions to a political committee. those are obviously examples, but there are other examples. minor parties, candidates for the green party or new
parties that have no chance of getting elected and all. >> well, that is a slightly different question. the term committee had been interpreted to refer to groups that had the major purpose of electing a candid it. >> yes. >> heathrow another wrench in the works that makes this seems like it as a very different -- >> i want to be clear about that. there are two kinds of committees. the independent committees that make only independent expenditures sometimes known as super packs. those are not at issue. none of my clients want to make a contribution to that or anything like that. there are other committees that the nra, for example, has a pack, it's not a corporate pac. it's not a contractor pack. the nra committee makes contributions in elections. that is the kind of committee to which my clients might want to make contributions commanded is banned.
>> is that a super pak? >> no. >> i believe that term not defined by statute. my understanding is those are packs that make independent expenditures and can do so without limits based on citizens united. >> i ask because of the district court the district court said the you expressly said to your clients and i want to make contributions. >> that is independent expenditures. they neither want to make independent expenditures themselves, to account ads in newspapers, or give money to organizations. >> what exactly do they want to do? >> they want to make contributions to candidates, political parties. >> what about committees. >> they have said that they may wish to do that. they have not done so. >> through what was said in a district court in your brief that that issue is not before us. he said in a footnote that your clients don't want to
be read in district court you told that his record to decline still want to make contributions to super packs. what exactly other than political parties and individual politicians. >> there may have been some miscommunication between us and the district court. my clients did not expressly indicates that they wanted to make a contribution to an organization like a right to life committee with the nra or planned parenthood that makes direct contributions to be that is a political committee that is covered by 441c. >> mr. miller, the only surviving plaintiff has not mentioned committees. the other two who now appear -- they do mention committees. malaysia says, would like to provide financial support for candidates running for federal offices and are there political parties. so i understand they you
have an argument that there is not a way of relieving the over inclusiveness by giving to issue but on the stand they you have standing order that your clients have argued that they have any intention of contributing to the kind of things you're talking about to my memo is the nra, sierra club, whenever you're talking about was and would reach contribute. is that right? >> that is correct, your honor, we believe first that there is a document we are entitled. second, your honor, i would say on the standing of both mr. brown who is temporarily not a government contractor but may well be a government contractor -- >> in his statement says something like, it is possible. >> you will look for
employment, your honor. he has been there before in january. it is certainly possible that he may begin. those are almost always a trigger word for us in a standing. >> it's interesting. another qb have the case, but you really put a lot of emphasis on the analogy between contractors and employees. it seems that in fact some of your clients to illustrate exactly one of the big differences which is the contractors tend to be in and out and in and out of service. and that is really a exacerbating the risk of pay to play to my just the kind of quid pro quo corruption that is really at the heart of what this provision is about. somebody who has a short-term contract and then turns around and needs work again. you know, that is the dynamic that is at the heart of this. >> with respect to mr. mr. miller, i see my time is
about to expire. man answer the question? >> of course. >> both of them were long-term employees to be many years under contract. they were hired not because of anything they did politically but because their employers knew who they were, appreciate their work and wanted them brought back on the job. professor wagner was hired not because she put in a bid because the minister of conference -- >> i understand. >> of course -- >> i want to be clear that there are multiple variations on the statutes. the government has hundreds of thousands of contractors. u.s. aid has 700 -- >> would you acknowledged that the ban is a better fit when it comes to contributions to candidates then it might be for contributions to political parties? >> of course it depends which candid it's we're talking about. a minor party candidate has a chance of being elected to
office, before talking about incumbents sitting in the armed services committee, that would be a better fit. but the problem here is, like this court's decision in sec against bob with the sec carefully fit the pieces together and made a considered judgment as to whether real dangers were and where they were not, the statute does not come close to satisfying the courts substantial matching of the goals and the means chosen to effectuate the of. >> other questions from the bench? >> okay. thank you. >> thank you your honor. >> mr. chief judge in may it please the court government contractors pose an acute danger of corruption in partisan disruption of
efficient government functioning. >> should you start with a standard review? and particularly interested in your brief for you side beaumont and say that our standard of review is relatively complacent. >> just the way ronald. >> had a huge square that with mceachern? >> that is as compared to strict scrutiny. >> of. >> are you accepting in -- you're not arguing that we are to do something other than standard set forth in the question? >> that's correct. it is narrowly drawn scrutiny which the court has indicated is a lesser degree of scrutiny that strict scrutiny and to which courts should defer to legislative government. >> so in your judgment what does that leave us free to do that we could not do under strict rigors in this case? >> does that give us the freedom to do here? >> the court does not need to assess whether there are -- whether congress will employ the least restrictive
alternatives. instead, made must determine whether the purpose is essentially mismatched with the and served. >> use a mismatch is will we look at not? >> it is where you look at. all you determine -- >> of course there has to be a reasonable fit. it has to be proportionate to the interests that are served. in the interest on the need to be important interest. >> estimates rana. >> are we allowed to consider any other government purposes beyond corruption and appearance of corruption? i mean, you are arguing that there are other purposes at play here communal, the merit based selection. but can we really consider that under governing supreme court precedent? >> yes, judge wilkins. it is true that the supreme court has set on a number of occasions that when implementing campaign contribution limits that the
appeals of corruption and corruption and the only interest that can be served, but those we are addressing generally applicable contribution limits. here we have a discrete class of people that are targeted with a particular purpose for imposing contribution limits on that class. that other important interests of a marriage based work force is appropriate, and as judge kevin i indicated in citizens united which is one of those cases where the supreme court indicated that generally when restricting campaign funding, the appearance of corruption and corruption are the only interests that can be served, the court specifically noted that the letter carriers mentioned an interest in effective government functions and that the congress has a right to ensure that those functions can be served without partisan interest. ..
>> is there any evidence that the parties and committees are somehow involved in the awarding of the contracts? >> there is evidence they can be involved in quid pro quos. for example the scandal that led to the passage section 441 although it's been recalled a fight involved the democratic national committee. in 1930 elections the party agents went around the country armed with lists of contractors. >> how do you respond to the arguments that things have changed that we have a completely new regulatory landscape that affects that in a significant way? spirit this isn't the case where intervening changes in the law have made it so that the function of 441 is no longer being served in a meaningful way so there has been some -- congress has paid attention that there've been measures to make
sure contracting in some instances is done through competitive bidding and buy professional contracting officers but a large portion of the contracting workforce doesn't occur through the competitive processes. and the incidence of the contract is a growing phenomenon >> do you have any other examples where perhaps the parties and committees have been implicated in the contracts? >> there has been extensive experience in the states and the states have responded so for example in connecticut -- >> at the federal level the argument of the states are definitely situated with the contractors that are more political than the federal. i'm talking about the second level in the experience where the parties and the committee's political committees are involved in the contracts.
i should point out the court has instructed it should be taken into account it would have to happen in more indirect ways and it has, for example one of the most notorious scandals involving jack davidoff and the congressman may, one aspect of that was a foreign government gained a contract to install the wireless service in the united eighth house of representatives and that money was funded through a contribution to a charity run by jack abram off. it's not the case that the congress -- >> i'm asking hasn't happened.
duke cunningham one of the most scandals was funny by -- funded by him to the candidate committees by the defense contractor and other individuals you won't find the person of the contractor level having given a contribution to the party committee for the non- candidate committee. to the political party committees. do you think they could be new employees for making the conditions consistent in the first amendment?
>> it has. they were not allowed to make contributions until 1993. >> how about the grant recipients? >> i am not sure. there would have to be some evidence of danger. there hasn't been a record -- lots of mismatched questions but for example the contractors are still allowed to raise money and bundled money and you know and i know that people that the bundle and raise money are much more valuable to the parties and candidates then one individual contribution. what do we do about that in the
statute blacks? >> that is money coming from the person receiving the contract being used to make campaign contributions of it is true that other means of expressions were allowed including raising money for the candidates without spending extensive money to do so but that is consistent with the congress charge which is to make it closely drawn. >> that raises the question with a follow up with that follow-up with that because that raises the other side of the problem. but the equal protection argument, the sec said setting it up is not onerous. so in the wall all of these government contractors could set
up and then go and make all of the political contribution they want. doesn't that raise serious questions about what this is actually getting? >> i don't think so. it's true that perhaps congress could go further. >> that wasn't my question. my question is your argument is to prevent the government contractors from making political contributions. according to your theory and director of in the record of the case introduced by the commission, any independent contractor can willingly make any contribution that he or she wants simply by setting up the l. l. c. and the record also shows that agencies are indifferent to whether or not they are contracting with the individual. so doesn't that raise serious questions about the legitimacy
of the claim if it can be going to do wounded so easily? >> i don't think so. that notion challenges the very separate personhood. so iowa does permit a person to setup a separate ending set up a separate ending and have that entity that means that there are some consequences, so that entity is the one that has to pay taxes. >> you say that it's not onerous to do this. that is your record. that's your evidence. the other side says it's a difficult. the congress has attacked the most dangerous possible exchange
and that is the legal person who actually getting the money from the government cannot make the contract. at least the person that could be offering the x. change can't make ex- change can't make the contribution. and i would say i think -- >> if i'm a contractor i can set up and contract with aib and i can make all the contributions i want in my name. >> but that doesn't mean a damn congress put in place isn't serving any purpose at all. >> it just makes you wonder if it's easy to eastgate.
a >> it does attack the most dangerous exchanges area to >> the problem in the statute it does it as does i'm just attack the most dangerous situations. it's the broad categorical ban on the donations of a nickel even to the nra committee or the right to life committee or any of those types of organizations. and so on the one level you have congress coming in saying there's a real problem here or real risk of bad appearances and so we have to come in and have a comprehensive ban. but it's easy to get out of so that's what's hard to reconcile. you can't say they were getting the worst thing when in fact they got an awful lot of them the worst thing and say that it's okay to have this kind of tactical distinction.
that's a hard thing for me to reconcile how do i deal with that under that closely drawn the scrutiny. >> the congress attacked one part of the problem very forcefully that left the scope of the statute in a very measured way. so in the buckley case of the court this underinclusive analysis doesn't have to go as far as it could, so the provisions addressing people that own the corporate contractors or have shareholders who are substantial owners, legislatures have included provisions. the green party case for example did include some of those provisions and the case included some family members and those were not held. so the congress could have gone that far. >> but suppose the congress said
we think the two situations raise the same problem of respect to the appearance of impropriety. the two situations being the stuff that we are covering and later on they say the office of corporate contractors. we think that they raise the same issue in the propriety but nonetheless we are going to cover the first one and there is no explanation or attempt at explanation after the fact by the lawyer seeking to defend the law as to how you could draw that line. it is your position it's okay for the congress to do that because they could decide not to restrict more speech. they could stop short and attack it one step at a time even if it is the same problem. it would only be shut down if the provision as the court said it cannot be said to advance any genuinely substantial government interest and i don't think that
we are at that point. if it was that easy and they've refined their position and the argument today in fact some contractors can't just set up the llc. >> does that make it better or worse? you have a subset now that can't, is it everyone just like them that can do llc is golden under the statute and we will just pretend that there is no real problem if the donation to congressman so and so on the armed services committee comes from llc rather than the contractor. >> like all these questions when there is an over challenge and a analysis it is always going to cut one way or another. but the various options are not some sort of congress is going to bump up against one or the other.
it has the reasonable research and -- isn't it whether it is closely drawn? if you can work your way around the corporate form why do you need the ban and why wouldn't the limit to be good enough? >> as the party said any dollar amount can raise the appearance of the corruption concerns of any dollar amount from the person that's actually making the contribution does raise the concerns. they build up completely on the regulation. that would be an attack on the notion of the corporate personhood. once you set up the entity the individual is no longer liable for the misconduct.
there are rules. the taxes are paid. there isn't a difference in this context that would make it a separate legal personhood is that it means the government isn't serving to make serving any purpose whatsoever. >> there is another inclusiveness that's concerning which is that in one final quid pro quo you gave in to give and and gave and get your contract and that isn't covered because you are only covered if you are negotiating for or under the contract. isn't that undercut to the congressional interest in the combating correction? >> even if they occurred at some previous point in time? >> if i am a one be contractor and i think who has influence
i'm going to give to that office holder and then when the application goes in i get the contract. if i wasn't under negotiation for the contract, i am not covered so under the negotiation they are actually contracting. >> i think it's true that setting up the limit so that there was a period of time after the contribution that would serve the interest that we have asserted even more. but the congress doesn't have to go to the logical lines of the district said there had been provisions like that and they've been upheld but as with all these interests, the further you go, the congress most severe
danger is being stripped down. so the further you go the more risk you potentially run of finding that it's not substantial and it covers too much. >> doesn't the fact that there is underinclusive miss a century italy got any argument that this is really directed the actual corruption. that wouldn't prevent the actual corruption and the only thing the statute could really consider it to be would be the appearance is isn't that really where we are? >> this provision continues to serve an interest in preventing the quid pro quos.
ongoing problem. >> i don't think that in the 1940 debate that issue was discussed specifically. it's a more frequent occurrence today. >> no discussion and 94? stack that was changed whether the federal employees -- >> there is no such thing in the 1940s is there? >> probably not. >> and there is nothing in the statute. >> that's your regulations. we have a a definition of persons. >> on the staff definition --
>> i'm just asking. the definition of person which doesn't extend to it doesn't mean a human being beyond of the llc. is that a statutory regulatory definition? a >> if there was a definition in the statute -- don't they have a regulation that specifically says the individual contractor can? >> i don't believe there's there is a regulation specifically to that effect. >> where do they come from just so that i'm clear. everybody said you can set up the llc.
>> this may come as an operation of the state laws state laws of the statute addresses persons. if people are setting up certain persons under the state law then it doesn't reach them. but i think that the court had it right on the question the fact that legislature chooses to focus on one danger quid pro quo that is every conceivable instance doesn't render its rationale to the credulous. so, the fact that there is some means for the separate legal persons to engage in this activity does that mean that the purpose is and being moved further in some sense and so again, the corporate ban, they don't have the same opportunity to just set up. as a part of the equal protection claim is the individual contractors are worse
off but that isn't really clear in some ways they are better off and in some ways they are worse off. >> one thing the challengers say is if it is in the contracting process the solution is to tightly regulate the awarding of contracts to take the stuff before you as infringing on the speech. how do you respond to that argument? stack congress promoted to address the danger of corruption into the interest in selecting the merit-based workforce so i think the congress has done both and is permitted to do both. those provisions have completely made the interest that the congress asserted no longer serving any purpose whatsoever. in new jersey the state contractor made a number of contributions to try to win to the motor vehicle system.
it was awarded on a personal contract with $400 million. they use their contributions and access to distort the awarding of the system through the competitive process. they didn't complete the contract while over $200 million over budget and had to be scrapped within weeks and that was the situation where the actual corporation had delivered a thousand dollar check to the state senate leader the day after they had more of the proposal and government relations person introduced the corporate representatives in that way. this is from the parsons company they just submitted the bid in the proposals. a check from the actual contributor so even though in that situation the formalities of the contracting haven't been set up to try to prevent that sort of corruption there was no
evidence that they make the interest in fighting the good provost and effective government function no longer being served by the confusion then. just like in the last ten years a number of states have come in new jersey, ohio, connecticut, hawaii today because of exactly those kind of problems even though many of the states do have a process for trying to make bidding. >> can i ask one real-world practical question. how many individual federal contractors are there. >> congress hasn't been able to get a handle on it. >> and many are federal employees i would imagine. so the question is someone's been a federal employee and
contributed and then became a contractor and keeps contributing without knowing the law. that is in this case but the real world implications does the government warned contractors that they are now subject to the contributing because i imagine if not, i imagine that there are a lot of unintentional violations out there. >> ibb there's mandatory ethics training for employees. >> ibb there's a general matter there are compliance matters for the entities. >> i don't think there's evidence on the record but i think there is. there are measures taken to help contractors comply. >> and the mens rea not knowing of the law outside of the
justice department issue is not not going to won't do you think that it is to the felony charge if you don't know the law you've been a federal employee and cut a 100-dollar check to your local member of congress. the supreme court said required as a general proposition and knowledge of the law. >> in the context it was held to be correct. >> i just want to clarify that that wouldn't be joined into this in other words completely unknown because i imagine and maybe i'm wrong but maybe there is not a record in this case we normally have the thinking about this one concern was completely unknown violations and whether that would land you in prison.
that wouldn't be a criminal violation. >> but the statute says it covers donations made either directly or indirectly. if it was the intent that they couldn't otherwise make without with that count as indirectly? >> it is a different person making the contribution. >> how does it work without going through someone else, is that what it means? >> it could be through someone else but if you've actually gotten into trouble of setting up a separate legal person, i don't think that's what the statute was addressing. >> the situation would be the racks for the individual directly to the congress. a >> than the individual starts
writing checks. those are direct payments to the members of congress and politicians, right clicks >> they are from the llc. part of the work that was done at the time. >> are you telling me if i set up an llc they can contract with the government and make contributions? >> if an individual makes conjugations. >> what is in direct about that? >> it's a different person. >> i'm having trouble figuring out where you get this. i understand there's nothing in the statute that supports the proposition are making so does that mean the statute is unconstitutional that the federal regulation that you're interpreting is inconsistent with the statute? the statute and even the regulation on the plaintiff side of it is section 115.6 talks
about the individual members of the associations and corporations but says ed talks about them in the plural. are there any or are we playing with a shadow plaques there aren't any rulings in the government contracting context and i'm not sure about -- >> the statute that says a person cannot make a contribution that in which we have ruled that an individual that is the sole member of the llc can make it? >> i think there might be. there may be some indications in that in the past commission histories. maybe in the advisory context. i am not sure.
>> but you argue that it's an equal protection case. they say it is too expensive to set up and they say it's not. and i assume that what you both are talking about is that they can contract with the government and the individuals can make contributions. is that correct? >> the individual who has set up and contracted with the government, the individual is then free to make the contributions. isn't that what the debate is about on the case? >> that is part of the debate, yes. >> further questions? okay. additional time? we will give you another two minutes. >> thank you, your honor. >> i think the answer is that
the llc is a subject of the corporations. it's the most poignant example between the individual at the declaration page 76 of the appendix will answer that. the second point i want to make is what the judge they have been able to determine how many federal contractors there are. i try as hard as i could there are individuals and corporate contractors. as far as the democratic national committee -- dimmick is that a relatively recent development of having large personal service contractors? spinnaker think that it's partially responsible to the congress and executive branch unwillingness to have employees so i go out and hire contractors doing the same things as my clients are here. in the supervising employees as far as the scandal in 1940 is
concerned that the scandal could happen today. what happened today instead of the owner of the business itself making the contributions come at the business owner would make the conditions. that is exactly what this is allowed and that is what most of the scandals are about. a thousand dollars in new jersey anyone who has a business with a big contract surely could afford a thousand dollars. >> if you are concerned about them being very much similar to employees, certainly it is the case that in the states, the political parties have -- trying to figure out, if suddenly made clear that the low-level political employees have to give money to the party if they want to keep their job come a right clicks >> that is forbidden by federal law. that is a subtlety or on the subtlety or unsettled tea before on the subtlety they forbid that. >> it is a quid pro quo so what we are really looking for the supreme court decided that doesn't matter that is not enough to make the limits on the contribution. it's inappropriate.
so, we have to look for something close because we are not likely to find the exact corrupt bargain. and as in that very similar being from the great state of illinois, the supreme court has to opinion on the state parties in illinois. suddenly they made sure the employees that makes conjugations could be heightened by the sheriff. that was 1976 and then the republican party did the same thing 15 years later from the state government. don't does show that parties have an incentive to try to make money even in small amounts from large numbers of employees by looking at who contribute and who doesn't? and if that is the case if we take this cap off why would we think that it wouldn't happen at
the federal level as well? a >> first, your honor, we are dealing with employees and these are party contractors and they've already permitted to make the very same contribution. >> they are growing the group of people available to get the contributions to the political parties. if we take the cap off for them what makes things the parties won't take advantage of? >> the parties would solicit the contractors. they solicit them from the bigger contractors now. and can i read from the government brief page 32 most americans lack of familiarity with the complexity of federal contracting and they can easily
view any contribution i contractors with suspicion. that's the reason that the political tax of corporate contractors into the office of the corporate contractors and the chief procurement officers and major shareholders and contractors, that's what's wrong. there is no explanation as to why the other protection in of the federal election campaign act are not sufficient to take care of those interests and give the substantial mismatch that we have. we ask the court to declare unconstitutional as it is applied to these individuals.
>> as someone who takes the safety of our citizens seriously, i'm proud of the changes we made with respect to gun laws are making people safer. i am proud we are going to have universal background checks and we limit the size of the capacity to get to 94 shots off in just a few minutes. that's what happened at sandy hook school. he also said we don't want additional weapons of mass disruption to be sold in the state. iab lead in all of that and i believe that we need to invest in in mental-health mental health and that's why we are doing it as well. my opponent is telling me that
he would appeal that law that allowed us to love her homicide in the connecticut by 32% in 2013. that law is making children safer in schools and on the streets of bridgeport, hartford and new haven. the wall that we came together on a bipartisan basis and the majority leader were or the minority leader of the state senate championed the legislation and he championed it as well. tom foley will repeal it and i will never, ever do that. >> moderator: mr. foley? foley: mr. malloy isn't telling the truth. i said i would never repeal the gun law and i won't. the wall that he passed doesn't mean people in connecticut any safer.
we had a terrible tragedy. there were an awful lot of things and i said at the time to the governor through the media please let's fix the problem and its figure out what the cause was and let's address that and not to do and overreach which is what he did. the source of the problem was a mental-health wrap and the governor had an opportunity to address mental-health issues here in connecticut which i would like to address as governor. it's a serious problem and we don't have enough care for certain people with certain problems and i would like to solve that. he had an opportunity to take a good direction as a result and instead he went off in a direction that was unnecessary and he took away the rights of the people who consider those rights important. you recognize in the debate on tuesday night that those rights exist and are imported so why did you take them with no
beneficial effect we are not any safer and this is a goal that was inconvenienced for a lot of people. i want to move on and address things that are more important going down the road like the economy and getting control of spending in the state. >> thank you. your rebuttal fax malloy: mr. foley, i've had a lot of respect for you over the years. but tonight you just told everybody in the state something that's not true. you have said repeatedly that he would sign the repeal of the gun law. you said that month after month after month. and now that you understand that the people are catching on to what he would do to their children and the urban environment and to the law now you want to fishtail around and flop back and forth and have it both ways.
enhancing and easy enhancing an easy-to-use and and easy to use and interoperable and let that be a bit of it guideposts to deliver the solutions around it. so looking at the pilots that we have, we have some looking at smartphone applications which will basically be used to log into different sites and others are different biometrics and fingerprint and face and a voice recognition. enough that each of these will be a solution for everybody. but it's the kind of thing that we are testing out. ahead of the summit with the leaders of the asia-pacific economic cooperation the group of economists discuss the challenges with energy security in asia. hosted by the center for strategic and international studies this is about an hour.
>> i know people are still coming in but it looks like they are getting coffee. i work on the program here at csi s.. we are working with scott miller's team to put on today's conference. our next agenda item, the next panel is on energy security in asia. we know the picture in asia has changed very dramatically over the last decade at least in part because of the rapid economic growth. as a, we have to great panelists to join us here today and who will give us brief overviews of the situation from their perspective and then we will have a discussion involving the audience. so, the first speaker is jonathan, who is the acting assistant secretary of international affairs at the u.s. department of energy. previously, jonathan served as the principal deputy assistant
secretary for the office of policy and international affairs and are really her before that can work the brookings institution on energy and foreign policy issues. jonathan, the floor is yours. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure to be here. today i see that one of the dilemmas of having a beautiful new building is that the world outside you get reminders that the world outside is out there and a distraction it certainly is. in my view it is very fitting that we have this discussion about energy security in the frame at this time and also at this place because between the developments in energy security
and the challenges and opportunities that one sees emerging in asia and in the united states over the last several years, one could say that the two are the most dynamic pieces of the global energy seen as president. the united states and our companies have worked together with the countries and the companies of asia on energy issues for quite a long time but nonetheless i think it is worth taking a step back and looking at the current state of play in terms of context that provides the backdrop to the discussion on this panel. in 1977, the u.s. crude oil imports amounted to 46% of u.s. consumption. it's nearly 70% a few years ago but dramatically than in the
period of this new century we've seen an important change. in 2013 the domestic crude oil in the united states amounted to nearly 10 million barrels a day and it looks like now for the foreseeable future of the imports of crude oil into the united states will be on a downward trend, not an upward trend. that was true so very recently. in asia meanwhile once these dramatic growth in crude oil, consumption and other energy consumption. the net oil imports into asia-pacific region will rise to more than 25 million barrels a day by 2035 and that is pretty close to the current output of the middle east. within that, the international agency for sees that we'll
dependency in southeast asia will be probably on the order of 75% by the that same time. co. of 2035. these statistics i think our useful as framing because they speak to the importance of the investments and trade across boundaries between different regions of the global energy world. if you look at some of the data historically back to the 1970s, in 1977 the united states accounted for 31% of the global consumption. asia was roughly 17% of the same period and today we find that those orders of magnitude have roughly reversed with the united states consuming around 20% of global production in asia around
33%. i won't go further into this context but i will just underscore that whether one looks at cole with the dramatic rise of the combustion in china and other asian countries or whether one looks at oriole or natural gas with increasing trade of liquefied natural gas one sees very dynamic growth all across asia and that is an important backdrop to the topic today. it's a look from the u.s. perspective and how we are engaging with our partners in asia i would call of several different features. one is that the united states is committed to working with our
partners, our friends and allies from around the globe to enhance energy security for all involved. in may of this year the ministers met in rome for the purpose of the renewed focus on energy security as an issue that again had kind of receded from the view for a period of time and then reemerged to the forefront of the focus. the second piece of the energy policy that i would emphasize at the outset is a focus on accelerating a transition to the low-carb economy. in june of last year president obama rolled out the climate action plan which called for important steps that will significantly alter over a long horizon the profile of u.s.
energy consumption and use. in addition to presidents climate action plan called for steps to make our energy systems and economy more broadly significantly more resilient to the changing climate because this is the reality that we are already experiencing. and thirdly are engaging with international partners on this agenda as well. let me give just a couple of examples where i close. one come in the context of the united states has worked closely with partners from all around focusing on energy development and energy security and sustainability. for example the working group under aipac is pursuing the
goals of reducing the energy intensity by 45% across the economy and by 2035 doubling the share of renewable energy in that economy energy mix by 2030 and collaborating on the phaseout is an efficient fossil fuel subsidies. international agencies that count among the members several important asian partners. they've been looking to increase our engagement with other nonmember countries across asia. one particular example that i would get in this context are the conversations about a new form of the nonmember
affiliation between the iaea and some key partners including china and india. this is the idea is still under the development under an association relationship between the nonmembers and the iaea. this is motivated in the general sense again that the dynamism in the context is one that calls for significantly increased engagements. we are also working bilaterally with important partners all across asia. i will not go into details here. i will simply highlight three or let's call it for in the view of the visits this week, for asian relationships that matter deeply to the united states and the energy arena one is with india earlier this week there was a series of announcements about new initiatives in the energy and climate space.
the second is with china. india claimed the summit occurs in about six weeks time it is reasonable to expect that again energy will be an important part of the conversation and and and is certainly in the bilateral meeting that the president will have we expect the same. japan has been for years a very important partnership to the united states across the water waterfront of the different technology spaces and in terms of policy collaborations, energy efficiency from one to another with last but not least, the collaborations with the public of korea i would say are also an important piece of our bilateral work. so, i will stop here and hope that i've been able to provide at least a point of departure
from the u.s. perspective. the core point that i would emphasize is the following. in the time that one sees a great deal of dynamism and the energy context of the united states, we nonetheless are focused very closely on the fact that the dynamism in the asian energy economies is the other prevailing reality. we applaud the busy and we want to work closely with asian partners and i would be happy to take any questions that you all may have after the speakers have finished. thank you very much. [applause] our second speaker is the director general of natural resources and fuel department in the agency for the natural resources and energy in japan's ministry of economy and trade.
previous to this job, he served in brussels where he worked to improve cooperation between the eu and japan. he's a graduate of georgetown university. >> is my pleasure to be here to explain our view on the energy securities and also i'm very happy to come back here after 22 years after the graduating of georgetown university summit. it's a very important issue and in the economic security, growth and in the case they have a big mixture of the supply and some
growth especially in the case of cold. and it's to respond to the energy demand. it's for the energy supply and it's not a good mixture of oil and coal and so on. the predictions said that during the coming two decades in the demand would increase by 100%. we need to encourage the countries to rise into the
options like nuclear or renewable energy to share with the u.s. government to address the local law chance to asian countries. but at the same time, if we see the energy securities or economic growth costello for many asian countries, coal has an advantage that goes to the point of view. that's why according to the prospect at this moment, the portion of the 70% of the total electricity supply and it is
still more than half in the year 2013. in other words, the total electricity demand will increase by 80% during this coming 20 years. to reduce the dependency on coal is intended very common interest for the u.s. and japan and asian countries. but as i mentioned, the initial report is to encourage nuclear gas into renewable energy and those kind of low carbon options. ..
to reduce the co2 emission. the best option. a very big challenge for us. and to reduce the co2 reduction from a coal-fired plants is mainly realized by the improvement of efficiency of the generations. and in the current situation , the most advanced technology, the have more than 45 percent energy fi